Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Gulf of Mexico region (Helmers 1992). Continual degradation and loss of habitats used by wintering and migrating shorebirds may cause an increase in intra-specific and interspecific competition for remaining food supplies and roosting habitats. In Florida, for example, approximately 825 miles of coastline and parallel bayside flats (unspecified amount) were present prior to the advent of high human densities and beach hardening projects. We estimate that only about 35% of the Florida coastline continues to support natural coastal formation processes, thereby concentrating foraging and roosting opportunities for all shorebird species and forcing some individuals into suboptimal habitats. Thus, intra- and inter-specific competition most likely exacerbates threats from habitat loss and degradation. Sand placement projects In the wake of episodic storm events, managers of lands under public, private, and county ownership often protect coastal structures using emergency storm berms; this is frequently followed by beach nourishment or renourishment activities (nourishment projects are considered “soft” stabilization versus “hard” stabilization such as seawalls). Berm placement and beach nourishment deposit substantial amounts of sand along Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic beaches to protect local property in anticipation of preventing erosion and what otherwise would be considered natural processes of overwash and island migration (Schmitt and Haines 2003). Past and ongoing stabilization projects fundamentally alter the naturally dynamic coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats, including those habitat components that piping plovers rely upon. Although impacts may vary depending on a range of factors, stabilization projects may directly degrade or destroy piping plover roosting and foraging habitat in several ways. Front beach habitat may be used to construct an artificial berm that is densely planted in grass, which can directly reduce the availability of roosting habitat. Over time, if the beach narrows due to erosion, additional roosting habitat between the berm and the water can be lost. Berms can also prevent or reduce the natural overwash that creates roosting habitats by converting vegetated areas to open sand areas (see summary of studies documenting importance of bay beach habitats for piping plover foraging, section WM 2.2.1.4). The vegetation growth caused by impeding natural overwash can also reduce the maintenance and creation of bayside intertidal feeding habitats. In addition, stabilization projects may indirectly encourage further development of coastal areas and increase the threat of disturbance (see WM 2.2.2.5). Lott et al. (2007 in review) documented an increasing trend in sand placement events in Florida (Figure WM2). Approximately 358 miles of 825 miles (43%) of Florida’s sandy beach coastline were nourished from 1959-2006 (Table WM2), with some areas being nourished multiple times. In northwest Florida, the USFWS consulted on first time sand placement projects along 46 miles of shoreline in 2007-2008, much of which occurred on public lands (Gulf Islands National Seashore (USFWS 2007a), portions of St. Joseph State Park (USFWS 2007b), and Eglin Air Force Base (USFWS 2008a)). 32
Figure WM2. Number of sand placement events in Florida between 1959-2006. Table WM2. Summary of the extent of nourished beaches in piping plover wintering and migrating habitat within the conterminous U.S. From USFWS unpublished data (project files, gray literature, and field observations). State Sandy beach shoreline miles available Sandy beach shoreline miles nourished to date (within critical habitat units) 33 Percent of sandy beach shoreline affected (within critical habitat units) North Carolina 301 1 117 5 (unknown) 39 (unknown) South Carolina 187 1 56 (0.6) 30 (0.003)) Georgia 100 1 8 (0.4) 8 (0.004) Florida 825 2 404 (6) 6 49 (0.007) Alabama 53 1 12 (2) 23 (0.04) Mississippi 110 3 >6 (0) 5 (0) Louisiana 397 1 Unquantified (usually restoration-oriented) Unknown Texas 367 4 65 (45) 18 (0.12) Overall Total 2,340 (does not include Louisiana) >668 does not include Louisiana (54 in CH) 29% (>.02% in CH) Data from 1 www.50states.com; 2 Clark 1993; 3 N.Winstead, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, in litt. 2008; 4 www.Surfrider.org; 5 H. Hall, USFWS, pers. comm. 2009; 6 partial data from Lott et al. (2007 in review).
Page 1: Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Page 4 and 5: NGP 2.4.4 Synthesis ……………
Page 6 and 7: Table AC1. Tier 2 (project-specific
Page 9 and 10: 1.1 Reviewers Review Team (primary
Page 11: 1.3.4 Review history The piping plo
Page 14 and 15: 2.1 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND AP
Page 16 and 17: Table 1. Number of piping plover ad
Page 18 and 19: population segment to the species t
Page 20 and 21: eeding adults (unpubl. data from Ma
Page 22 and 23: Piping plovers in both the U.S. and
Page 24 and 25: Evaluation of the persistence of th
Page 26 and 27: clarification of the listing would
Page 28 and 29: Lingle, G. R. and J.G. Sidle. 1989.
Page 30 and 31: Goossen, J.P. 2008. Discussion info
Page 32 and 33: Figure WM1. Breeding population dis
Page 34 and 35: Coast, suggests that shared over-wi
Page 36 and 37: in December 2006 to peak counts of
Page 38 and 39: drawn attention to washover passes,
Page 42 and 43: At least 668 of 2,340 coastal shore
Page 44 and 45: Table WM4. Number of recent groin i
Page 46 and 47: Tilling beaches to reduce soil comp
Page 48 and 49: While public lands may not be at ri
Page 50 and 51: crouching when in the presence of a
Page 52 and 53: insufficiency of regulations to pro
Page 54 and 55: inlet where off-road vehicle use is
Page 56 and 57: consultation was concluded informal
Page 58 and 59: In sum, although the risk for impac
Page 60 and 61: accelerated habitat changes, there
Page 62 and 63: wrack. Another example of indirect
Page 64 and 65: Brault, S. 2007. Population viabili
Page 66 and 67: Gibson, M., C.W. Nathan, A.K. Killi
Page 68 and 69: Lott, C.A., P.A. Durkee, W.A. Gierh
Page 70 and 71: Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catli
Page 72 and 73: USFWS. 2008c. Biological opinion on
Page 74 and 75: Farley, R. 2009. Phone conversation
Page 76 and 77: GL 2.3 UPDATED INFORMATION AND CURR
Page 78 and 79: Habitat degradation and loss contin
Page 80 and 81: commitments to implementation. Incr
Page 82 and 83: average rate of 1.76 (Stucker et al
Page 84 and 85: GL 2.3.2.4 Taxonomic classification
Page 86 and 87: 4% 28% 13% Great Lakes Region 78 Fe
Page 88 and 89: GL 2.3.3 Five-factor analysis In th
Page 90 and 91:
GL 2.3.3.2 Factor B. Overutilizatio
Page 92 and 93:
plovers. As predation by merlins is
Page 94 and 95:
acknowledged that a large percentag
Page 96 and 97:
Several years of population growth
Page 98 and 99:
Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catli
Page 100 and 101:
Recovery Criterion A. Number of bir
Page 102 and 103:
Recovery Criterion C. The Canadian
Page 104 and 105:
Piping Plover Pairs 900 800 700 600
Page 106 and 107:
Piping Plover Pairs 600 500 400 300
Page 108 and 109:
NGP 2.4.2 Biology and habitat Since
Page 110 and 111:
the population trend for the entire
Page 112 and 113:
year period on average. The upper b
Page 114 and 115:
International Piping Plover Census
Page 116 and 117:
Individual Ploves Surveyed 1200 100
Page 118 and 119:
provide sandbar habitat for plover
Page 120 and 121:
etween available acres, plover abun
Page 122 and 123:
Alkali lakes As on the Missouri Riv
Page 124 and 125:
occurs in the middle of the season,
Page 126 and 127:
Freshening of water on saline wetla
Page 128 and 129:
nation for wind energy potential, a
Page 130 and 131:
The 1988 recovery plan suggests the
Page 132 and 133:
In addition, the states in which pi
Page 134 and 135:
2009). Overhead power lines have be
Page 136 and 137:
difficult to ascertain, because the
Page 138 and 139:
NGP 2.4.5 Section references Americ
Page 140 and 141:
Haig, S., T. Eubanks, R. Lock, J. S
Page 142 and 143:
National Research Council. 2004. En
Page 144 and 145:
USACE. 2008b. Northwestern Division
Page 146 and 147:
Mulhern, D. 2008. Electronic mail d
Page 148 and 149:
Recovery Criterion 1. Increase and
Page 150 and 151:
Recovery Criterion 4. Institute lon
Page 152 and 153:
Productivity Annual productivity es
Page 154 and 155:
anded as adults exhibited fidelity
Page 156 and 157:
half of the Southern recovery unit
Page 158 and 159:
a third of the approximately 2.5-mi
Page 160 and 161:
adverse effects (including indirect
Page 162 and 163:
(2002; 2003). Permit conditions res
Page 164 and 165:
Table AC1. Tier 2 (project-specific
Page 166 and 167:
Habitat restoration efforts Efforts
Page 168 and 169:
each-nesting birds. Examples of sit
Page 170 and 171:
New Jersey state regulations protec
Page 172 and 173:
often place their nests near cobble
Page 174 and 175:
approximately five miles off the co
Page 176 and 177:
increased coastal storm activity an
Page 178 and 179:
However, all of the major threats (
Page 180 and 181:
Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Sh
Page 182 and 183:
Jones, K. 1997. Piping plover habit
Page 184 and 185:
National Park Service. 2008b. Pipin
Page 186 and 187:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 200
Page 188 and 189:
Hoeh, J. 2009. February 13, 2009 em
Page 190 and 191:
182
Page 192 and 193:
3.2 Recommended Recovery Priority N
Page 194 and 195:
186
Page 196 and 197:
processes are impeded. Compare with
Page 198 and 199:
a. Continue to encourage and improv
Page 200 and 201:
Recommended research and data needs
Page 202 and 203:
increases flow velocity and thus sa
Page 204 and 205:
5. Conduct studies to understand po
Page 206:
198
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix A The outside experts and
Page 211 and 212:
Appendix B Estimated abundance of b
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix C Wind turbine generator (
show all

Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?